KEDAR PRAKASH VANJAPE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

ITA 1293/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 July 2018AY 2011-124 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not heard. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was filed late by over four months. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices due to a change in address and his father's medical condition. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and dismissing it without deciding on merits, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Hearing: 23.07.2018Pronounced: 24.07.2018

आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-3, Pune, dated 23.02.2016 relating to assessment year 2011-12 against order passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the asst. order and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

2 ITA No.1293/PUN/2016 Kedar P Vanjape

2] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal and hence, the delay ought to have been condoned and the appeal of the assessee should have been decided on merits. 3] The learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the various additions made by the A.O. were not justified and the same should have been deleted.

Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application was moved for adjournment. However, because of the issue involved, the appeal was heard ex-parte the assessee and is being decided after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.

The assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal late against the assessment order and thereby erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee is also aggrieved by the additions made by the Assessing Officer under the ex-parte order, which was upheld by CIT(A).

Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹ 28,86,680/-. The case of assessee was taken up for scrutiny. However, assessment was completed ex-parte the assessee under section 144 of the Act after making addition of ₹ 77,79,410/-

and assessing the total income at ₹ 1,06,66,090/-.

Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal which was late by four months and fourteen days. The assessee filed condonation application before the CIT(A) and also mentioned that because of change in his residential address, he did not receive any of the notices which were issued by the

3 ITA No.1293/PUN/2016 Kedar P Vanjape

Assessing Officer. He alleged that no proper opportunity was given by the Assessing Officer before passing the ex-parte order under section 144 of the Act. The assessee also pointed out that because of medical condition of his father, notices served at the old address, were not communicated to him. The CIT(A) rejected the contention of assessee as the new address was not communicated to the Assessing Officer. He also takes note of the fact that one of the notices was attended by the assessee but he did not file details and thereafter, did not appear and hence ex-parte order by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) thus, rejected the plea of assessee and also rejected the condonation application filed in respect of appeal being filed late. The appeal of assessee was dismissed without deciding the issue on merits of the additions made as the assessee was given several opportunities by the Assessing Officer.

The assessee is in appeal against the said order of CIT(A).

We find this to be a fit case where principles of natural justice stand violated. It is an established law that no person should be condemned unheard. The Assessing Officer no doubt had given notice/s of hearing at the old address of assessee and hence, there was non-compliance before the Assessing Officer. The assessee explained the position before the CIT(A), who chose to ignore the same. The assessee also filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal late before the CIT(A), which was also not allowed. We find no merit in the order of CIT(A) in this regard. We are of the view that the assessee had filed the appeal late about four months and fourteen days and the same merits to be condoned. We condone the delay

4 ITA No.1293/PUN/2016 Kedar P Vanjape

and we also find merit in the plea of assessee and restore the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer for do novo assessment. The assessee is directed to file correct address for communication before the Assessing Officer after receipt of the order of Tribunal. The Assessing Officer is also directed to complete assessment de novo after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate and furnish the details before the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 24th day of July, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 24th July, 2018. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयतलऱपप अग्रेपषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-3, Pune; The Pr.CIT-3, Pune; 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “ए” / DR 5. ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →